In the course of many flame wars, some people have professed a desire to learn more about other countries. I was reading an EXCELLENT series of articles in The Economist this weekend; they did a series of articles on America and American "exceptionalism" - the things that makes America different.

First, The Economist is an excellent, usually unbiased, magazine. I highly recommend it. In addition, this particular series of articles was pretty dang interesting. Finally, I'll be damned if the entire series of articles isn't online!

I wanted to post the following excerpt about American patriotism. Several people have expressed concerns about the rise of U.S. patriotism in the last few years. This is an excerpt that might help you understand what patriotism is to us:

---------------------------------
Europeans have long been bothered by this feature of American life. De Tocqueville again: “There is nothing more annoying...than this irritable patriotism of the Americans.” But since September 11th the Europeans have become even more disturbed. They associate patriotism with militarism, intolerance and ethnic strife. No wonder they consider it an alarming quality in the world's most powerful country.

Yet European and American patriotism are different. Patriotic Europeans take pride in a nation, a tract of land or a language they are born into. You cannot become un-French. In contrast, patriotic Americans have a dual loyalty: both to their country and to the ideas it embodies. “He loved his country,” said Lincoln of Henry Clay, “partly because it was his own country, but mostly because it was a free country.” As the English writer G.K. Chesterton said in 1922, America is the only country based on a creed, enshrined in its constitution and declaration of independence. People become American by adopting the creed, regardless of their own place of birth, parentage or language. And you can become un-American—by rejecting the creed.
--------------------------------------------

This particular article can be found here:
www.economist.com/display...id=2172144 (http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?Story_id=2172144)
The entire series of articles can be found here:
www.economist.com/display...id=2172066 (http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=2172066)

Be sure to read the articles listed in the Related Items section. There's lots to read; there's even a section I found interesting on Evangelical Protestantism . I did not know that it has become the most widespread religion in the U.S. The article on religion is "Therapy of the Masses."

I also didn't know that U.S. birthrates/fertility rates were back up to the point to sustain and or grow the population, whereas European Union birthrates are at the point we were in the 80's - not enough births to sustain and grow the population.

Again, excellent magazine and excellent series of articles.

OMG HERE IS THE COCKROACHES DONT BEAT A DEAD HORSE WTF OMGOSH

Is what any of us would recieve in bringing this topic up.
Just one thing..

'but mostly because it was a free country.”'

- The one with all the slavery? Cool beans.

Halo, the quote came from a man who gave his life bringing the promise of freedom to all those slaves. Your nation's history isn't free of the blemish of slavery either.

Very true about the dead horse beating. Ah well, *breaks out the horsewhip*.

Anyway, I would just like to point out we got our slavery situation started by good ole England in the first place so don't get too smug. Took us forty years longer to get rid of it, but other countries took even longer than us (see Brazil).

Interesting read. I'm not sure I agree with all of it, but some of it I do.

"Halo, the quote came from a man who gave his life bringing the promise of freedom to all those slaves. Your nation's history isn't free of the blemish of slavery either."

Not free from the blemish named Halo either :D

'Your nation's history isn't free of the blemish of slavery either. '

- I'm not the one saying it is though, am I?
Just.. stop pretending your country was built on equality and freedom. And I'll stop pretending we all look like James Bond.

Although I can do an uncanny Sean Connery impression.

"stop pretending your country was built on equality and freedom."

Better stated, it was built with the goal of equality and freedom...there have been many mistakes made (and they continue today) but the goal is there.

I especially like doing impressions of Connery as done on SNL..


"So...we meet again..Trebeck!!" :rollin

Okey I'm gonna edit that one out and explain myself further.

American is the only nation of today that incorporates the true spirit of liberalism. America is indeed a liberal's dream... if you limit it to the nation alone. The paradox is that America mostly dig themselves in and play hard ball across the mostly anarcistic world order of today, something which can be illustrated by pointing out that the US military budget alone equals all of the other nations in the world combined.

That, combined with the intense patriotism (which any psychologist can tell you is a defensive-reactive mindset) contradicts the concept of liberalism completely. Also, conservatives of the nations openly and repeatedly thrash "liberals", a phrase that which in many respects have turned into a bad word in many circuits.

So what you have in america is a self-contradiction. A nation, the only nation, based completely on the concept of liberalism, that in many regards opposes the world around it, and who completely ignores the doctrine of "l'aissez faire" (a doctrine I personally do not support, but something that is essential in true liberalism).

Just.. stop pretending your country was built on equality and freedom.

Actually, our country was built on the backs of slaves and indentured servants. It was built by religious outcasts and criminals. It was administered by greedy royalty and predatory merchants.

Eventually a group of people began to believe there was something better and sought to change that, recreating our country with different principles in mind.

Those principles were not universally applied overnight but they remain the principles that we live by and continue to try and assure for ourselves and for anyone else who wishes to embrace them despite the fact that we frequently quarrel among ourselves about how best to do that.

"That, combined with the intense patriotism (which any psychologist can tell you is a defensive-reactive mindset) contradicts the concept of liberalism completely."

Although I could find no evidence supporting on contracting this statement, I personally do not believe it. I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. I consider myself extremly patriotic, however socially I would be considered by most, to be fairly liberal.

"Also, conservatives of the nations openly and repeatedly thrash "liberals", a phrase that which in many respects have turned into a bad word in many circuits."

Granted the right wing conservatives are getting more air time now, but the liberals had their time too. During the Clinton adminitration "the moral minority" was the buzz word (at least prior to a certain cigar wielding incident :')

"that in many regards opposes the world around it"

Don't confuse America with the current adminstration. I agree that right now the US is in a distinctly "anti-liberal" environment due to the current administration and those in power. Personally I think there are movements back and forth in this country, from left to right and back...hopefully overall landing some where in the middle. Let's face it a completly liberal country would be chaotic and a complete conservative one would be what.....Facist?

Well, I guess Halo answered the "who starts all the anti-U.S. crap" question for this particular thread.

It's a magazine article. Read it. Perhaps you'll learn something.

I was talking to a friend of mine today.
He works at the courthouse I do, mainly to fill his empty time and keep himself active.
Anyway.. he used to be a Professor of Politics at Notre Dame.
I talked to him about the conversations we have on these boards, and the tendancy I have to be more liberal when talking amoungst a group of other Americans, yet much more conservative when talking to the random Euros around here..

I didnt know if it was because either the average Euro tends to be so extreme in their liberalism that I shift several places to the right of my natural views.. or if it was a reaction of defense to percieved attacks on my nation.
(I still think btw, that many Euros have a really unhealthy level of self depricating liberalism, the kind that Ayn Rynd wrote about. I believe that this isnt a product of government actions, but rather a societal phenomenon, whereas a more rigid and implanted class structure lends itself more to a kind of desperation and anger. Haloface is a prime example.)

This guy had a interesting take on it. He thought that as Americans.. we are kind of amusing in the sense that we REALLY want to be "liked". Its an important thing to us..
It stems in his opinion from a level of feeling of inadequecy with the "old world". For example.. We watch British Royal Family with most likely a higher sense of regard and respect than most British "subjects" French wines are the best, German Engineering is the best.. ect ect..
Also, when you ask someone in the US what their nationality is, you get 1000 different answers..
"Oh, Im Italian".. "Im German and Polish"... "Im 1/4 Irish, 1/4 Cheroke Indian and 1/2 Russian" ect ect...
So as a nation we feel a connection back to Europe, we get upset when that feeling isnt met by Euros, and INFURIATED when people from nations like France attempt to "look down" on us..
But America is probably the most forgiving nation on Earth.. we really cant stay mad at anyone. Maybe its a trait in our national character burnt in from the Civil War, or our Christian tradition. Go to war with us.. we rebuild you.. Oppose us, next month we are chasing you like a big kid trying to make friends, Quick to anger, Quick to forgive. Its who we are. Look how many people in American culture have done something totally wrong, but eventually been forgiven and reaccepted into the warm embrace of popularality.

To me, the root of this lies in another area as well.. for 200 years America has been the greatest land of opportunity on the planet.
Come to america.. Work hard, as anything, a Janitor, whatever, and you CAN create a better life for your children, give them chances and opportunites that you never had, give your family something to build on.
Thats the REAL greatness of America.. not wealth or military power, or technology.
Thats why 1000s of Mexicans pour across the border, why people flood here from other areas of the world. The ability to create something, the chance for self sacrifice to give your children a better life.
America belongs more to these people in way, in a more raw sense.. The immigrant working 3 jobs, wether from Europe 100 years ago, or from Asia or the Middle East tomarrow, in hopes of scaping together enough money to send their kids to college, to give them a chance they would never have had.
Its really the most beautiful gift a person can give their child, and its what has made America great, and why we get so passionate against percieved attacks on what America is who Americans are.

Don't confuse America with the current adminstration. I agree that right now the US is in a distinctly "anti-liberal" environment due to the current administration and those in power. Personally I think there are movements back and forth in this country, from left to right and back...hopefully overall landing some where in the middle. Let's face it a completly liberal country would be chaotic and a complete conservative one would be what.....Facist?

I have no other way to judge america than by its actions, and its current actions are taken by the current administration :) I realize Bush isn't the poster child for a united political front, but as is... he's in charge.

As for your paradigm analysis, you're confusing liberalism with anarchy. Liberalism is the belief in a world society where peace is achieved by the removal of political, social, economical and terrestrial borders. One big happy family so to speak where everyone is dependant on one another.

In reality the current world order is an anarchistic one where might makes right. And the US has the might, and claims the right. I could evolve on that, but I'd suggest you pick up an unbiased book on international politics instead.

Oh, and yes, you can be a liberal and a patriot within one nation, but you can't really adhere to the real liberal paradigm when you're a patriot. That's not to say you have to hate your nation, it just means that for the liberal paradigm to achieve its goal no nation can be prioritized over another.

Shit Lou, you're a liberal after all.

The reason your not getting the flys to shit response from me, is because this is a well thought out post (and a very good article to read)

Not the usual:

"AMERIKA MADE ME LOSE AT COUNTAR STRIKE AND THEY STEALE PEOPLS CHILDRAN" horse shit, from the ambigously retarded trio.

"he's in charge"

It hurts when you remind of that...stop please :')

"removal of political, social, economical and terrestrial borders"

I believe this would lead to anacarchy actually (given human nature).

"anarchistic one where might makes right"

Not sure this makes you "right", might make you win.

"unbiased book on international politics instead"

I don't belive one exists unless it is totally abstract...talking theory and not about the real world. Maybe that's what you meant though.

So what you're saying is, you can't be a complete liberal in every way and be a patriot, because if you were completely liberal, you wouldn't believe the very idea of a country. Got it... < a little slow alert :')

Good posts in general.

I agree that a lot of liberalism made its way into the founding philosophy of the US. But it is not the only influence and IMO Americans favor a "moderation in all things and all things in moderation" approach. Too much liberalism and the system collapses into anarchy. Too little and you get another despotic police state. So you get a republic instead of a pure democracy and a national outlook that never gets too far to the right or too far to the left.

Conservative and liberal labels are misleading in and of themselves. This century's "liberals" may be considered the next century's "conservatives". Don't forget Abraham Lincoln was in the republican party which espoused the radical notion of eliminating slavery, hardly a conservative notion for the time. Who knows what will be considered "liberal" in another hundred years?

From the original message "In contrast, patriotic Americans have a dual loyalty: both to their country and to the ideas it embodies. “He loved his country,” said Lincoln of Henry Clay, “partly because it was his own country, but mostly because it was a free country.” As the English writer G.K. Chesterton said in 1922, America is the only country based on a creed, enshrined in its constitution and declaration of independence. People become American by adopting the creed, regardless of their own place of birth, parentage or language. And you can become un-American—by rejecting the creed." -----

Now . . . I did not read any other posts . . . pointless . . .
About this excerpt from the originator. Look at the time period that these examples were taken from. Now ask yourself how long has it been since you recited the creed (pledge of allegiance) or really payed any attention to your own level of patriotism from day to day? This is more on the minds of the older generations much more so than the youth. What do the youth care, I mean as a whole. Not a damn bit. Lets play some more goddamn EQ.

Part of the patriotism exhibited on this board I think is partially self-defense, but ultimately, it's a lack of things to do and the ability to actually think about what you're posting (or lack thereof).

To be honest, if I was walking down the street and Halo came up, half-frothing at the mouth spewing spittle and spare teeth all over the place and screamed, "AMERICAN IS TEH SUCK!" I'd shrug and keep walking.

I normally, honestly, don't give a fuck. The closest thing I get to political debates is deciding whether the Daily Show is funny or not. The same with religious debates, etc...etc...in real life, I'd must rather debate on which chick is hotter, and if I'd hit it or not.

I don't belive one exists unless it is totally abstract...talking theory and not about the real world.

Ailwon, all paradigms are theory, and not the real world. Liberalism, socialism, power-realism (the three "Big Ones") etc are all just that, theory. The only one that has ever been fulfilled of them is the power-realism one, and that happened during the cold war. A fulfilled paradigm basically means that the prerequisites it state for peace have been achieved.

Maybe collapsing the borders would lead to anarchy... but it'd end the current era of strife that are all existant because of the boundaries. Take a look at a map of africa. Fairly straight lines, maybe circling around a lake, but in all it looks like one of those butchers maps. The reason is because the europeans held a few conferences going "you get this, if I get that" over the entire continent in the 1800s.
And that isn't the first time it's happened. Many of the current conflicts (serbia, northern ireland, ETA/Spain, the kurds) exist because when borders were drawn, they didn't care where people lived, they just arbitrarilly divided stuff up.

Erhm. Okey I'll stop lecturing now.

'Well, I guess Halo answered the "who starts all the anti-U.S. crap" question for this particular thread.'

- /sigh Why come to a board and post something up for debate if you're scared of people saying negative things.
Honestly.

'Pot, kettle - black' Justin?

I am a bit too busy to write a lot here, but I still wanted to take the chance to say that this was a highly enjoyable read. Very nice discussion so far.

i gotta disagree with your analysis of what liberalism is.

How can liberalism be the removal of boundries, clearly we have seen that boundries = choice. That in essence was one of the founding principles of making The United STATES of America.
For most Americans liberalism is defined as a more flexible view of the Constitution. It is seen as a living and breathing document that can be changed to adapt to the times, when events arise that confront the spirit of the work and the intent of the authors.
I fear the collapse of borders and the unification of nations in big conglomerates..
"Ahh, another fine day in Oceania... who we at war with today Winston? Oh? Eurasia? Last week they were our allies.. oh well"
Power is a very dangerous thing when centralized. It destroys by its very nature when weilded.
Would the removal of all borders on earth mean "peace"? Possibly.. but it would also mean total control and the removal of choice. That was the horror in Orwells book, the destruction of the human spirit.. the reference of "the face of humanity being stomped on by a boot for all of eternity" as a vision of the future, is only made possible by removing Free Will, removing choice, making each life an unescapable prison.
Control.

What I'm saying, L2, is that America is the definition of liberalism... unto itself. To the rest of the world's liberals it is an obstacle. America is just a mini model of how the world would look (on the basic level at least) according to liberals.

You're a nation with no inherent racial superiority with a high focus on individual freedom under a common set of laws and regulations. Substitute nation with "world" and you have the liberalistic paradigm in a nutshell.

Liberalism, the paradigm, is however not the same thing as "allowing people a freedom of choice". Sounds weird, yeah. Because a liberal will tell you that liberalism places the individual's freedom at the forefront. It's the same with the socialistic paradigm and the modern socialists. The goal of the socialistic paradigm is revolution, whereas the people we call communists and socialists turn white at the mere mention of violence. In our nations. But take a look at, for instance, cuba.

Remember, most of us are of mixed origin when it comes to politics. I'm a neo liberal/socialist/capitalist all in one. Thus the paradigms seem extreme to us, but a shitload of people on earth doesn't have access to the education we do, nor are influenced by the political diversity, and thus tend to adhere to extremes.

See, in the western world... we're all the same really. Republican or Democrats may vary a lot on the political level... but on the ideological they're just two flavors of vanilla. Sweden's leftist party and the rightist are just two flavors of centerism. It's because we already have the basic stuff. Food, shelter, clean water, education, the possibility to influence our future, that we don't have to lean towards extremistic views. However to someone growing up under an oppressive regime, pute communism (armed revolution, proletarian dictatorship) is the most natural thing in the world. Well, at least until a few years pass... but that's another can of worms.

Personally I believe every paradigm there is has its good sides as well as flaws, and that the mix we're seeing in most modern countries is for the best.

didnt know if it was because either the average Euro tends to be so extreme in their liberalism
Can you please point out the average Euro .. I have never had the pleasure of meeting one.

Can you please point out the average Euro ..

Not a problem.

http://www.think-evolution.com/uploads/Halo.gif

Haha!


Ibudin

ROFLMAO!

Put that in sig size for me LL :) I'm SO using that.

I don't know if it was on purpose or not, but Kivorn did a good job of summing up some of points of the articles concerning America and liberalism.

You kind of have to step back from American politics to understand it.